Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, OK, I know, the title is inflammatory and my reputation in the political threads is going to prevent some people from taking a serious look at this topic. However, the title isn't mine and I ask you all to leave your patriotic flags, your, "not in my America" and "you're full of it" comments out of the discussion.

Let me set this straight right here (even though it'll still be missed by some), I am not claiming this country is fascist, nor that Bush is, nor that the NeoCons are, nor that it is inevitable, or anything of the kind.

And Nazi Germany as well as the dictators of the time, including Hitler, are going to be mentioned in this thread. I only refer to these people for the historical record. Any correlation with people or events of today is up to each reader to determine for themselves but that is not what this thread is about.

Change of this nature is insidious. The politics of fear is very successful. Here is where this is all coming from: I heard author, Naomi Wolf, talk about her book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot", which outlines 10 steps which in history preceded the development of fascists states. I almost went to hear her speak but I just couldn't spare the time.

Here are the steps from a web article discussing them in detail:

• 1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
• 2. Create a gulag
• 3. Develop a thug caste
• 4. Set up an internal surveillance system
• 5. Harass citizens' groups
• 6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
• 7. Target key individuals
• 8. Control the press
• 9. Dissent equals treason
• 10. Suspend the rule of law

Some of you may have seen Wolf on the Colbert Report a couple days ago. Here's a link via the Crooks and Liars web site. I didn't pay as much attention to her then as I did when she had an hour to explain her position and evidence in more detail.

Which brings me to where is my opinion of this all? I simply don't know. History tells us modern countries with reasonable democracies have changed into completely different countries over and over again. This country had its McCarthy era. We added, "one nation under God", to the Pledge of Allegiance in response to 'the red scare' in the 50s. The South was a dangerous place to live if you were "an uppity black" as recently as the early 70s. The point I am making here is people can act in some pretty scary ways regardless of how normal they seem otherwise.

I also have no way of judging where we actually are on the slippery slope and whether like in the McCarthy era, the pendulum will just swing back, or whether things could get scarier than they are now. It seems the pendulum is swinging back, but then all that talk about going to war with Iran and Bush having a year left really concerns me.

The above labels of the 10 steps lead one to say that isn't going on here in America. But if you read the examples described in the book you see that the same steps occurring here is not that far fetched. Here's one right wing response. It attacks the titles and ignores most of the examples Wolf used to explain her reasoning. I suppose it's a bit foolish to expect already mentioning these will head off the same replies here. But it would be nice if we didn't have to discuss the meaning of "gulag" and could instead talk about whether the secret CIA prisons and Gitmo were in any way similar to prisons which preceded the development of other fascist states in history.

While it's obviously hard to imagine this country changing in any extreme way, what is it that prevents it from happening? Did other people have the same beliefs before their countries became fascist? Did the Germans of 1930 really imagine the Germany they would find in 1945? And Germany isn't the only example. Wolf discusses fascist movements in a much broader way than oversimplifying it into Hitler's Nazis.

So forgetting the nonsensical arguments about the words: fascism, Nazis, Hitler and gulags, where are we when you consider secret prisons, legalizing torture, suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Patriot Act, fear-mongering, private armies, and so on? "Are we there yet?" aside, I think when you start adding it up Wolf does make her case that the signs of possibility are there. Beware of insidious changes that sneak up on people before they realize it.


**latent aaaack actually started a similar thread but it seemed like we needed a new one to discuss this author's book and because la's poll confused me. I told him I'd give him the credit.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

So, basically, you don't want us to dispute your evidence? Stunning assertion

ETA: I should really run a spell check on my posts when I'm sleepy. I could have SWORN it said dispute.

 

[corplinx]

I have skeptigirl on ignore because her opinions on politics are rarely skeptical and honestly remind me of those of a high senior in all-black mad at the establishment.

I took a chance on "view post" and got burned. She linked a Naomi Wolf article/book that has about the same level of intellect and the same sophomoric attitude.

 

[Pardalis]

And why should we listen to Naomi Wolf?

From her Wiki biography she doesn't seem to have much credentials... in anything relevant.

ETA: does she even have any authority and knowledge in politics or history to be making such a list?

 

[lionking]

And why should we listen to Naomi Wolf?

From her Wiki biography she doesn't seem to have much of credentials... in anything relevant.

She's an unreconstructed leftie with a long history of anti-american rhetoric. And I am not american nor do I view all things american as bright and beautiful.

 

[damien pastaume]

OK, OK, I know, the title is inflammatory and my reputation in the political threads is going to prevent some people from taking a serious look at this topic. However, the title isn't mine and I ask you all to leave your patriotic flags, your, "not in my America" and "you're full of it" comments out of the discussion.

I believe Naomi W's 10 steps started doing the rounds the best part of six month's ago. They look about as credible now as they did then.

Let me set this straight right here (even though it'll still be missed by some), I am not claiming this country is fascist, nor that Bush is, nor that the NeoCons are, nor that it is inevitable, or anything of the kind.

Why not? Whose definition of 'fascist' are you using as your reference? Most historians look to Mussolini when defining fascism. Mussolini essentially defined fascism as the perfect union of the state with the corporations. Apologists may argue that nazism gave fascism a bad name - and to an extent they'd be right. The extent to which they'd be wrong is that fascism per se is an inhuman power structure - it requires the surrender of individualism to the service of the all-powerful state.

As far as American Fascism is concerned, it should be noted that there are keen students of Mussolini among America's policy makers - chief of which is Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute. Read more:
http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html

And Nazi Germany as well as the dictators of the time, including Hitler, are going to be mentioned in this thread. I only refer to these people for the historical record. Any correlation with people or events of today is up to each reader to determine for themselves but that is not what this thread is about.

Nazi Germany is not the beginning and end of fascism.

Change of this nature is insidious. The politics of fear is very successful. Here is where this is all coming from: I heard author, Naomi Wolf, talk about her book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot", which outlines 10 steps which in history preceded the development of fascists states. I almost went to hear her speak but I just couldn't spare the time.

Here are the steps from a web article discussing them in detail:

I wouldn't say what America is experiencing right now is strictly fascism, but that's beside the point. Ultimately it is about making the individual subservient to the state - and Wolf's points are worth considering on that basis. We are moving towards unified law, unfied economies and ultimately unified world government.

I completely reject this goal.

 

[danielk]

We are moving towards unified law, unfied economies and ultimately unified world government.

Ah, well, if that's going to be the definition of "fascism" then the United States of America is definitely the worst example one could come up with.

 

[Pardalis]

Miss Wolf in 2006:

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/02/naomi-wolf-encounters-jesus.html

Can I say woo?

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/13368/naomi-wolf-i-had-a-vision-of-jesus

 

[CFLarsen]

I have skeptigirl on ignore because her opinions on politics are rarely skeptical ...

Which opinions on politics are skeptical?

Are you saying that politics can be determined skeptically? That we can examine the evidence and be able to vote for the politician with the best skeptically founded political agenda?

 

[Wolfman]

Well, my responses:

A) I believe there are very legitimate criticisms of U.S. policy under G.W. Bush, in fact I believe he is the worst president the U.S. has ever had, I consider him a political and religious bigot who believes that the combination of overwhelming power and his religious beliefs give him the right to do whatever he wants.

B) That said, there is one whoppingly huge difference between Bush (and the U.S.) and Hitler's Germany (or any other fascist system), and that is the fact that Bush will be out of power in a short time, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it. More and more Americans are themselves expressing their distrust/dislike of Bush, and of his party.

That is a crucial difference; it is entirely impossible within a democratic system to guarantee that you do not sometimes get terrible leaders. But you can remove them relatively easily.

C) I also find Wolf's writing to be terribly immature and partisan. Take the example of her section on "Develop a Thug Caste"; she really, really has to stretch to make even a weak argument in this category. This isn't a rational, logical discussion that looks at both sides of the question in an effort to find reasonable answers; it is a politically motivated and partisan effort wherein conclusions have been made before it was begun, and facts are twisted and abused to make them fit that "truth".

D) Following on point 'C', Bush's administration has proven incredibly skilled at utilizing the very same tactic over and over and over. They decide what result they want, or what 'truth' they think is best, and then simply twist the facts in whatever way they can to get people to follow them.

Which brings me to E) how can someone who claims to oppose Bush turn around and use the very same dishonest and unethical tools that Bush and Co. have used? The very first standard that I will use in judging anyone who claims to be 'better' than Bush is whether or not they hold themselves to a higher moral/ethical standard.

Sure, in the words and principles she uses, Ms. Wolf claims a higher moral ground; but in her actions -- in her willingness to abuse or distort truth, or to present only those truths that fit her argument and ignore all others, in order to manipulate people to accept her arguments -- I see little or no difference whatsoever.

 

[corplinx]

Which opinions on politics are skeptical?

Are you saying that politics can be determined skeptically? That we can examine the evidence and be able to vote for the politician with the best skeptically founded political agenda?

I wasn't saying anything remotely like that. I was saying that this poster acts like a git when the subject is politics.

For instance, skeptigirl once opened a thread about a Bill Moyers documentary that made some fantastic claims about the news media in relation to the Iraq war. Instead of posting it as a matter of skeptical inquiry, it was posted as an accusation and/or fact. Out of boredom, I picked a few of the claims/evidence at random from the transcript of the documentary and found they were either incorrect or grossly out-of-context to the point of being outright deception with simple google searches verifying the facts or going back to original sources.

This revelation wasn't met with the attitude of a skeptic. It was met with the attitude of a believer. This person reacted with hostility to this sort of challenge on what they had accepted as fact.

Politicians and those who write about them can make claims that can be put under scrutiny. Otherwise this subforum would be sort of pointless.

 

[CFLarsen]

I wasn't saying anything remotely like that. I was saying that this poster acts like a git when the subject is politics.

For instance, skeptigirl once opened a thread about a Bill Moyers documentary that made some fantastic claims about the news media in relation to the Iraq war. Instead of posting it as a matter of skeptical inquiry, it was posted as an accusation and/or fact. Out of boredom, I picked a few of the claims/evidence at random from the transcript of the documentary and found they were either incorrect or grossly out-of-context to the point of being outright deception with simple google searches verifying the facts or going back to original sources.

This revelation wasn't met with the attitude of a skeptic. It was met with the attitude of a believer. This person reacted with hostility to this sort of challenge on what they had accepted as fact.

Politicians and those who write about them can make claims that can be put under scrutiny. Otherwise this subforum would be sort of pointless.

Of course we should put claims made by politicians and those who write about them under scrutiny.

But where does opinions on politics come in?

Can you name one person whose opinions on politics are skeptical?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, at least Wolfman responded to the points made rather than attacking Naomi Wolf or the original poster.

Myself I agree that the USA under GWB is far more like a fascist state than it was previously, but it's still very much unlike full-blown fascism, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to think the trend will continue after the next Presidential election. Anything's possible but I currently see no strong reason to believe it.

 

[Darat]

I don't think you can consider that Gitmo is a gulag, it is not a prison for internal "enemies of the state" i.e. USA citizens convicted of political crimes against the state.

(Also does no one else find it slightly ironic that something so associated with the form of communism of the defunct USSR is being used as a sign of fascism...)

 

[TragicMonkey]

At least fascism comes with sexy uniforms. Every cloud has a silver lining, sort of thing.

 

[Chaos]

I don't think you can consider that Gitmo is a gulag, it is not a prison for internal "enemies of the state" i.e. USA citizens convicted of political crimes against the state.

(Also does no one else find it slightly ironic that something so associated with the form of communism of the defunct USSR is being used as a sign of fascism...)

If there is one word that can stir up a greater **** storm than "gulag", and thus detract more from a reasonable discussion, it is "concentration camp".

Besides, using the term "concentration camp" is 100% guaranteed to cause one or more patriotic zombies to respond "But we´re not imprisoning and murdering millions of jews, so how DARE you use this term, you anti-American terrorist-hugging scum?".

Therefore, it makes sense to use the term "gulag".

 

[Gurdur]

Meh³. Corplinx said it best, both as to topic and as to OP poster. This kind of overstated, hysterical **** really pisses me off; it destroys all the real criticism of the Bush regime by taking up all the space to make it in, and making all criticism look bad by association.

 

[Wolfman]

OK, OK, I know, the title is inflammatory and my reputation in the political threads is going to prevent some people from taking a serious look at this topic.

With all due respect...while our opinions on Bush are pretty much the same, if this is the kind of material that you think constitutes a thoughtful or substantive examination of the issues, I'd entirely disagree. And if this constitutes the kind of posts that you would typically make, I can understand why some people would stop taking a serious look at what you say.

There is no balance...where is the discussion of the significantly greater freedoms that Americans have than did the Germans under Hitler or the Italians under Mussolini? Where is the point that Hitler and Mussolini had no restrictions on how long they could remain in power, and were thus able to enact long-term policies that would be virtually impossible for an American president to enact?

And what of the very obvious -- and terribly lame -- attempts to make points in issues such as the "thug caste" thing? She seriously tries to draw a correlation between corporate bodyguards and mercenaries hired to protect industries in Iraq (which are under direct and immediate threat of attack) with Hitler's use of Brownshirts to suppress the populace in Germany...give me a freakin' break!!

A topic which simply discussed some of the losses of freedoms in the U.S., and some of the repressive/abusive policies that have been instituted under Bush Jr....that, I would have no problem with. But starting a topic by using such a terrible and anti-intellectual example as Wolf...its hardly surprising what peoples' responses are. Those who disagree with you politically will dismiss you entirely -- as they should (I would likewise dismiss entirely the argument of a pro-Bush apologist who used similar arguments to support their beliefs); the only ones who will find merit in it are the people who already agree with you, and who have no problem with distorting or ignoring facts in order to prove they are "right".

I like ya', skeptigirl; but I cannot really find any redeeming feature in this post.

 

[Darth Rotor]

OK, OK, I know, the title is inflammatory

Ya think?

I am not claiming this country is fascist, nor that Bush is, nor that the NeoCons are, nor that it is inevitable, or anything of the kind.

Check.

And Nazi Germany as well as the dictators of the time, including Hitler, are going to be mentioned in this thread. I only refer to these people for the historical record.

I only ever read Playboy for the articles and jokes, really. Why not use Chile under Pinochet or Spain under Franco as analogues? Get out of the old paradigm, stretch a bit.

Change of this nature is insidious. The politics of fear is very successful.

Agreed.

I almost went to hear her speak but I just couldn't spare the time.

So it goes.

Which brings me to where is my opinion of this all? I simply don't know.

The future is indeed murky.

History tells us modern countries with reasonable democracies have changed into completely different countries over and over again.

Some examples that are not America would be helpful.

The point I am making here is people can act in some pretty scary ways regardless of how normal they seem otherwise.

AGreed. Anti fur fanatics throwing blood on people coming out of a shop, enviro idiots spiking trees, and idiots in Jasper Texas dragging a black man behind a pick up truck come to mind, in varying degrees of nuts and pretty scary.

I also have no way of judging where we actually are on the slippery slope and whether like in the McCarthy era, the pendulum will just swing back, or whether things could get scarier than they are now.

About to hit another mogul. The slope's a black diamond.

It seems the pendulum is swinging back, but then all that talk about going to war with Iran and Bush having a year left really concerns me.

Pan back toward your original big picture, the Iraq War is a subset of a huge undertaking that is "doing that American thing." It bleeds, to it leads, and thus acts as a smokescreen for some other stuff, like nanny state CA arresting people for smoking in their own cars.

But it would be nice if we didn't have to discuss the meaning of "gulag" and could instead talk about whether the secret CIA prisons and Gitmo were in any way similar to prisons which preceded the development of other fascist states in history.

The CIA secret spots tend to be overseas, so the comparison falls down a bit, and Gitmo is an attempt at something like a holding cell and a POW camp, on foreign soil again. Trying to shoehorn them into another model for the convenience of an example is a poor way to structure an argument, if that is what you are doing, rather than parroting Wolf's thoughts on the matter.

While it's obviously hard to imagine this country changing in any extreme way, what is it that prevents it from happening?

Vox populi, perhaps, which swung the pendulum away from decriminalizing dope in the 1980's. Too bad. NORML was, IMO, on the right track.

Did other people have the same beliefs before their countries became fascist?

Fascism and nationalism were cousins in Italy and Germany, and in Franco's Spain (ask a Basque) so why not look at where nationalism in the US is headed. As I see it, the US is balkanizing, not cohering under a national banner, and has been since the Berlin Wall fell. (perhaps since before that.) It may be that some factions in America wish to reverse this Balkanization, but given the memes and technology, that genie is out of the bottle. My two cents.

Did the Germans of 1930 really imagine the Germany they would find in 1945?

Of course not. No one starts a war with the intent of losing it, in 1939, and no one in 1930 had yet considered Hitler as Chancellor. Getting out of their economic mess was a huge factor, what with the stories of people taking a wheelbarrow full of Reichsmarks to buy some bread.

And Germany isn't the only example. Wolf discusses fascist movements in a much broader way than oversimplifying it into Hitler's Nazis.

I'd suggest you take a tip from her, and deflect the Godwin objections earlier in your presentation.

So forgetting the nonsensical arguments about the words: fascism,

No. You put it into the post's title. Words are used for a purpose.

Where are we when you consider secret prisons, legalizing torture,

In a position to change it, now that it is out in the open.

suspension of Habeas Corpus,

Evidence, please? Lincoln did it, I am unaware of that writ being suspended in America, and certainly not in Texas.

the Patriot Act,

Needs fixing, and revision, or a major rewrite.

fear-mongering,

You will never get rid of that, it's part of politics. Reefer Madness. The War on Drugs. "Three Strikes and you are out!" policy. Ten Steps to Fascism is, wait for it, fear mongering.

private armies

The mercs are, for the moment, mostly being hired to fight foreign wars, so your objection is to Empire, not Fascism. Please check the WN, Libertarian, and Chomsky offerings for some fine supporting material. See also antiwar.com for some stuff on anti Imperialist comments, or just visit Ron Paul's web site. I tend to favor Lind's commentary on some of that stuff.

"Are we there yet?"

No, but I would not mind a course correction. I find the influence of multinational corporations vis a vis The State (and not just in the US) as an unhealthy political development. Not a fan of plutocracy, which we risk turning into far more quickly than a fascist state. Adding Bread and Circuses as a misdirection plays into your next point . . .

I think when you start adding it up Wolf does make her case that the signs of possibility are there. Beware of insidious changes that sneak up on people before they realize it.

Boiling a frog is not a thought original to Naomi Wolf.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

If there is one word that can stir up a greater **** storm than "gulag", and thus detract more from a reasonable discussion, it is "concentration camp".

Try saying that in Russia.

Besides, using the term "concentration camp" is 100% guaranteed to cause one or more patriotic zombies to respond "But we´re not imprisoning and murdering millions of jews, so how DARE you use this term, you anti-American terrorist-hugging scum?".

Therefore, it makes sense to use the term "gulag".

It doesn't make sense to use any of the terms. First, concentration camps is not a Nazi invention:

The English term "concentration camp" was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during the 1899-1902 Second Boer War[5]. Allegedly conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were used to confine and control large numbers of civilians as part of a Scorched Earth tactic. The term "concentration camp" was coined at this time to signify the "concentration" of a large number of people in one place, and was used to describe both the camps in South Africa (1899-1902) and those established by the Spanish to support a similar anti-insurgency campaign in Cuba (circa 1895-1898 [6]), although at least some Spanish sources disagree with the comparison.[7]
Source

Second, gulags were a special kind of concentration camp, where primarily political enemies of the state were sent:

It was the branch of the State Security that operated the penal system of forced labour camps and associated detention and transit camps and prisons. While these camps housed criminals of all types, the Gulag system has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet state. Though it imprisoned millions, the name became familiar in the West only with the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's 1973 The Gulag Archipelago, which likened the scattered camps to a chain of islands.

The word "Gulag" has also come to signify not only the administration of the concentration camps but also the system of Soviet slave labor itself, in all its forms and varieties: labor camps, punishment camps, criminal and political camps, women's camps, children's camps, transit camps., Even more broadly, "Gulag" has come to mean the Soviet repressive system itself, the set of procedures that prisoners once called the "meat-grinder": the arrests, the interrogations, the transport in unheated cattle cars, the forced labor, the destruction of families, the years spent in exile, the early and unnecessary deaths.[2]
Source

Gitmo can in no way be described as a "gulag", since the prisoners are not there for political reasons, nor is Gitmo a slave camp.